The Constitution of India gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution under:
Article 368
However, this power is not unlimited.
The Supreme Court has established that constitutional amendments can be examined by the Judiciary and can be struck down if they violate the:
Basic Structure of the Constitution
This principle represents an important balance between:
The power to amend the Constitution is primarily provided by:
Article 368
Article 368 gives Parliament the constituent power to amend the Constitution through the prescribed procedure.
However, the Supreme Court has held that Parliament cannot use this power to destroy the:
Basic Structure
of the Constitution.
Judicial Review is the power of courts to examine whether a law or governmental action is consistent with the:
Constitution
In the context of constitutional amendments, Judicial Review means that the Supreme Court can examine whether an amendment violates the Constitution's:
Basic Structure
Yes.
Parliament has extensive power to amend the Constitution under:
Article 368
It can amend various constitutional provisions, subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution and the Basic Structure doctrine.
No.
The Supreme Court has held that Parliament cannot:
Destroy or alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution
Therefore:
Article 368
↓
Parliament's Amending Power
↓
Subject to Basic Structure
5. Evolution of Judicial Review of Amendments
The position developed through a series of important Supreme Court judgments:
Shankari Prasad Case — 1951
Sajjan Singh Case — 1965
Golaknath Case — 1967
Kesavananda Bharati Case — 1973
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain — 1975
Minerva Mills Case — 1980
Waman Rao Case — 1981
I.R. Coelho Case — 2007
These cases gradually established the modern doctrine.
6. Shankari Prasad Case — 1951
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
The Supreme Court upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
The Court held that:
Constitutional amendments were not "law" under Article 13.
Therefore, Article 13 did not restrict Parliament's constitutional amendment power.
At this stage:
Parliamentary amending power was given broad scope.
7. Sajjan Singh Case — 1965
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court again upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
The Court broadly followed the reasoning of:
Shankari Prasad
However, some judges expressed concerns about whether there should be limits on the amending power.
These concerns later contributed to the development of the:
Basic Structure Doctrine
8. Golaknath Case — 1967
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
The Supreme Court changed its earlier position.
By a narrow majority, it held that:
Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights
The Court treated constitutional amendments as "law" for the purposes of Article 13.
Therefore:
Golaknath — 1967
↓
Parliament
Cannot Amend Fundamental Rights
This significantly restricted Parliament's amending power.
9. 24th Constitutional Amendment — 1971
Parliament responded to the Golaknath judgment through the:
24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971
It strengthened Parliament's constituent power under Article 368.
The amendment made it clear that:
Parliament has power to amend the Constitution
Article 13 does not apply to constitutional amendments
The dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court in:
Kesavananda Bharati Case
10. Kesavananda Bharati Case — 1973
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
This is the most important judgment concerning Judicial Review of constitutional amendments.
The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in:
1973
by a narrow majority of:
7:6
11. Basic Structure Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that:
Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter or destroy its Basic Structure.
This became known as the:
Basic Structure Doctrine
Therefore:
Parliament
↓
Can Amend Constitution
↓
But Cannot Destroy Basic Structure
12. Basic Structure Doctrine — Importance
The doctrine establishes a constitutional limitation on Parliament's amending power.
It protects the fundamental identity of the Constitution from being destroyed through the amendment process.
It therefore preserves:
Constitutional supremacy
Rule of Law
Democracy
Judicial Review
Fundamental constitutional principles
13. What is the Basic Structure?
The Supreme Court has never provided one exhaustive list.
Over time, various features have been recognised as part of the Basic Structure.
Important examples include:
Supremacy of the Constitution
Republican and democratic form of government
Secularism
Federalism
Separation of Powers
Rule of Law
Judicial Review
Independence of Judiciary
Parliamentary system
Free and fair elections
Dignity and freedom of the individual
Unity and integrity of India
The list is:
Not exhaustive
14. Judicial Review as Basic Structure
The power of:
Judicial Review
itself has been recognised as part of the Basic Structure.
Therefore, Parliament cannot completely eliminate Judicial Review through a constitutional amendment.
This ensures that courts retain the ability to protect constitutional limitations.
15. Separation of Powers
The:
Separation of Powers
is also recognised as an important element of the Basic Structure.
Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that destroys the essential constitutional separation between:
Legislature
Executive
Judiciary
16. Independence of Judiciary
The:
Independence of Judiciary
is another important element of the Basic Structure.
Constitutional amendments cannot completely undermine the independent functioning of courts.
This principle is particularly important in maintaining:
Judicial Review
17. Parliamentary Democracy
The:
Parliamentary form of government
and democratic principles form part of the Constitution's basic framework.
An amendment cannot destroy the essential democratic character of the Constitution.
18. Federalism
The Supreme Court has recognised:
Federalism
as part of the Basic Structure.
Therefore, Parliament cannot use Article 368 to completely destroy the federal character of the Constitution.
19. Secularism
The Supreme Court has recognised:
Secularism
as part of the Basic Structure.
An amendment cannot fundamentally destroy the secular character of the Constitution.
20. Rule of Law
The:
Rule of Law
is an essential constitutional principle.
An amendment cannot be used to completely eliminate the principle that governmental power must operate within constitutional limits.
21. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain — 1975
The Supreme Court examined the:
39th Constitutional Amendment
in:
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
The Court applied the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The judgment reinforced principles such as:
Democracy
Free and fair elections
Rule of Law
Judicial Review
as fundamental constitutional values.
22. 42nd Constitutional Amendment — 1976
The:
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976
attempted to expand Parliament's amending power.
It inserted clauses into Article 368 stating, in effect, that constitutional amendments could not be questioned in court.
It also attempted to make Parliament's amending power:
Unlimited
23. Minerva Mills Case — 1980
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
The Supreme Court struck down important parts of the 42nd Amendment relating to Article 368.
The Court held that:
Limited amending power
is itself part of the Basic Structure.
Therefore:
Parliament's Power to Amend
↓
Must Remain Limited
↓
Cannot Become Unlimited
24. Limited Amending Power
This is a crucial principle.
The Constitution gives Parliament the power to amend itself.
But the:
Power to amend
cannot be transformed into:
Power to destroy
the Constitution's basic identity.
Therefore:
Limited amending power is itself part of the Basic Structure.
25. Waman Rao Case — 1981
Waman Rao v. Union of India
The Supreme Court examined the relationship between:
Constitutional amendments
Ninth Schedule
Basic Structure Doctrine
The Court established an important temporal distinction.
Constitutional amendments made after:
24 April 1973
could be examined under the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The date corresponds to the judgment in:
Kesavananda Bharati
26. Ninth Schedule and Judicial Review
The Ninth Schedule was originally created to provide protection to certain laws from Judicial Review.
However, Parliament cannot use the Ninth Schedule as an absolute shield against the Basic Structure Doctrine.
This principle was developed further in:
I.R. Coelho Case
27. I.R. Coelho Case — 2007
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court held that laws inserted into the:
Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973
can be examined to determine whether they violate the:
Basic Structure
Therefore:
Ninth Schedule
↓
Not Absolute Immunity
↓
Basic Structure Review
28. Judicial Review of Amendments — Present Position
The present constitutional position can be summarised as:
Parliament
↓
Article 368
↓
Can Amend Constitution
↓
Cannot Destroy Basic Structure
↓
Supreme Court
↓
Judicial Review
29. Who Reviews Constitutional Amendments?
The:
Supreme Court
has the final authority to determine whether a constitutional amendment violates the Basic Structure.
High Courts may also exercise constitutional jurisdiction in appropriate matters, but the Supreme Court is the final constitutional authority.
30. Can Fundamental Rights Be Amended?
Yes.
After:
Kesavananda Bharati
Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.
However, such an amendment cannot:
Destroy the Basic Structure
of the Constitution.
This is different from the position established in:
Golaknath
31. Golaknath vs Kesavananda Bharati
Golaknath — 1967
Parliament:
Cannot amend Fundamental Rights
Kesavananda Bharati — 1973
Parliament:
Can amend Fundamental Rights
BUT:
Cannot destroy Basic Structure
This distinction is extremely important for UPSC.
32. Parliament vs Judiciary
The Basic Structure Doctrine represents a balance between:
Parliament
Democratic mandate
Constitutional amendment power
Ability to adapt the Constitution
Judiciary
Constitutional interpretation
Judicial Review
Protection of Basic Structure
The doctrine prevents either institution from exercising unlimited constitutional power.
33. Constitutional Supremacy vs Parliamentary Sovereignty
India follows:
Constitutional Supremacy
rather than absolute:
Parliamentary Sovereignty
Parliament derives its constitutional authority from the Constitution itself.
Therefore, Parliament cannot use its amendment power to destroy the Constitution's basic identity.
34. Judicial Review vs Parliamentary Amending Power
These two powers coexist.
Parliament
Can:
Amend the Constitution
Judiciary
Can:
Review constitutional amendments
if challenged on Basic Structure grounds.
Therefore:
Amendment Power
+
Judicial Review
↓
Constitutional Balance
35. Is Every Constitutional Amendment Subject to Basic Structure Review?
The Supreme Court can examine a constitutional amendment if its validity is challenged.
However, an amendment is not automatically invalid merely because it affects:
Fundamental Rights
Federal provisions
Institutional arrangements
The key question is whether it:
Destroys or damages the Basic Structure
36. Basic Structure Is Not the Same as Entire Constitution
The Basic Structure does not mean:
Every provision of the Constitution
is unamendable.
Parliament can amend many constitutional provisions.
The limitation applies to those changes that:
Destroy or damage the essential features of the Constitution.
37. Basic Structure Test
The Court examines the:
Substance and effect
of an amendment rather than merely its form.
The question is essentially:
Does the amendment damage or destroy a basic feature of the Constitution?
If yes, the amendment can be declared unconstitutional to that extent.
38. Judicial Review of the Amendment Process
The Judiciary can examine whether:
The amendment was passed according to Article 368
Required special majority was obtained
State ratification was obtained where constitutionally required
The amendment violates the Basic Structure
Thus, both:
Procedural validity
and:
Substantive constitutional limitations
may be relevant.
39. Special Majority and Ratification
Constitutional amendments may require different procedures.
Some amendments require:
Simple Majority
Some require:
Special Majority of Parliament
Some require:
Special Majority + Ratification by at least half of the State Legislatures
A constitutional amendment must follow the procedure prescribed by the Constitution.
40. Judicial Review of Procedural Requirements
The constitutional amendment process must comply with the applicable constitutional procedure.
For example, where State ratification is constitutionally required, the prescribed ratification requirement must be satisfied.
This ensures that Parliament does not bypass the constitutional amendment procedure.
41. Important Cases — Timeline
1951
↓
Shankari Prasad
↓
Broad Parliamentary Amending Power
1965
↓
Sajjan Singh
↓
Broad Power Reaffirmed
1967
↓
Golaknath
↓
Fundamental Rights Cannot Be Amended
1973
↓
Kesavananda Bharati
↓
Basic Structure Doctrine
1975
↓
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
↓
Basic Structure Applied
1980
↓
Minerva Mills
↓
Limited Amending Power
1981
↓
Waman Rao
↓
Post-24 April 1973 Amendments
2007
↓
I.R. Coelho
↓
Ninth Schedule Subject to Basic Structure Review
42. Important Constitutional Amendments
24th Amendment — 1971
Strengthened Parliament's constitutional amendment power after:
Golaknath
39th Amendment — 1975
Its provisions concerning election disputes were examined in:
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
42nd Amendment — 1976
Attempted to expand Parliament's amending power.
Important provisions were struck down in:
Minerva Mills
43. Important Principles from Cases
Shankari Prasad
Parliamentary amending power broadly upheld
Sajjan Singh
Broad amending power reaffirmed
Golaknath
Fundamental Rights protected from amendment
Kesavananda Bharati
Basic Structure Doctrine
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Democracy and free and fair elections protected
Minerva Mills
Limited amending power is Basic Structure
Waman Rao
24 April 1973 as important temporal reference
I.R. Coelho
Ninth Schedule amendments after 24 April 1973 subject to Basic Structure review
44. UPSC Prelims Facts
Article 368
→ Constitutional amendment procedure
Kesavananda Bharati — 1973
→ Basic Structure Doctrine
Majority
→ 7:6
Golaknath — 1967
→ Fundamental Rights could not be amended according to the judgment
24th Amendment — 1971
→ Strengthened Parliament's amending power
42nd Amendment — 1976
→ Attempted to make amending power unlimited
Minerva Mills — 1980
→ Limited amending power is Basic Structure
Waman Rao — 1981
→ 24 April 1973 temporal reference
I.R. Coelho — 2007
→ Ninth Schedule laws after 24 April 1973 subject to Basic Structure review
45. UPSC Prelims Traps
Trap 1
"Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights."
False under the present position.
After Kesavananda Bharati, Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights subject to the:
Basic Structure Doctrine
Trap 2
"Basic Structure Doctrine is explicitly listed in Article 368."
False
It is:
Judicially evolved
by the Supreme Court.
Trap 3
"The Supreme Court held in Golaknath that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights."
False
Golaknath held that Parliament:
Could not amend Fundamental Rights
according to that judgment.
Trap 4
"Kesavananda Bharati completely removed Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights."
False
It allowed amendment but imposed the:
Basic Structure limitation
Trap 5
"The 42nd Amendment successfully made Parliament's amending power unlimited."
False
Important parts were struck down in:
Minerva Mills
Trap 6
"Limited amending power is itself part of the Basic Structure."
True
Established clearly in:
Minerva Mills
Trap 7
"Ninth Schedule laws can never be reviewed by courts."
False
After:
I.R. Coelho
Ninth Schedule laws inserted after 24 April 1973 can be tested against the Basic Structure.
Trap 8
"Every constitutional amendment requires ratification by half of the States."
False
Only amendments involving specified federal provisions require such ratification.
Trap 9
"Basic Structure is an exhaustive list of constitutional provisions."
False
The Supreme Court has not provided a single exhaustive list.
Trap 10
"Parliamentary sovereignty is absolute in India."
False
India follows:
Constitutional Supremacy
46. Quick Revision
ARTICLE 368
↓
PARLIAMENT'S AMENDING POWER
↓
NOT UNLIMITED
↓
BASIC STRUCTURE
GOLAKNATH — 1967
↓
FRs Cannot Be Amended
KESAVANANDA BHARATI — 1973
↓
FRs Can Be Amended
↓
BUT
↓
Basic Structure Cannot Be Destroyed
MINERVA MILLS — 1980
↓
LIMITED AMENDING POWER
↓
BASIC STRUCTURE
I.R. COELHO — 2007
↓
NINTH SCHEDULE
↓
POST-24 APRIL 1973
↓
BASIC STRUCTURE REVIEW
47. One-Page Revision
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
│
├── Article 368
│ └── Constitutional Amendment
│
├── Evolution
│ ├── Shankari Prasad — 1951
│ ├── Sajjan Singh — 1965
│ ├── Golaknath — 1967
│ ├── Kesavananda Bharati — 1973
│ ├── Indira Gandhi — 1975
│ ├── Minerva Mills — 1980
│ ├── Waman Rao — 1981
│ └── I.R. Coelho — 2007
│
├── Basic Structure
│ ├── Rule of Law
│ ├── Judicial Review
│ ├── Judicial Independence
│ ├── Federalism
│ ├── Secularism
│ ├── Democracy
│ └── Separation of Powers
│
└── Core Principle
└── Parliament Can Amend
BUT
Cannot Destroy Basic Structure
48. Mains Answer Framework
Introduction
Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has evolved the Basic Structure Doctrine to ensure that the amendment power cannot be used to destroy the Constitution's essential identity.
Evolution
Mention:
Shankari Prasad — 1951
Sajjan Singh — 1965
Golaknath — 1967
Kesavananda Bharati — 1973
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain — 1975
Minerva Mills — 1980
Waman Rao — 1981
I.R. Coelho — 2007
Present Position
Parliament can amend:
Fundamental Rights
Other constitutional provisions
But cannot:
Destroy Basic Structure
Eliminate Judicial Review
Destroy judicial independence
Convert limited amending power into unlimited power
Significance
Protects constitutional supremacy
Prevents majoritarian excess
Protects democratic institutions
Preserves judicial independence
Maintains constitutional continuity
Criticism
Gives unelected judges significant constitutional power
Basic Structure is not exhaustively defined
May create tension between Parliament and Judiciary
Conclusion
The Basic Structure Doctrine establishes a constitutional balance between Parliament's need to adapt the Constitution and the Judiciary's responsibility to preserve its fundamental identity. It ensures that constitutional amendment remains a power to reform the Constitution, not a power to destroy it.